Quote

I think most conflicts do end with negotiated settlements; some don't, but most do.

The federal government needs to do a much better job of managing our resources, but the sale or transfer of our land is an extreme proposal, and I won't tolerate it.

Especially with the predators, one of the things that gets these programs going on a local level is for our land management agencies to build partnerships with surrounding communities and landowners.

Proper training and federal supervision in state-federal partnerships are essential to both assuring constitutional rights and enforcing our immigration laws. Our Founding Fathers' concept of federalism does not prohibit such cooperation, and we have learned from experience that joint efforts work best.

I've asked the Department of the Interior inspector general to look into how much manpower and taxpayer money has been spent responding to ALEC-supported bills that force federal land managers to give land to states.

I think each negotiation should be based on what's the best decision - taking everything into account, not taking one thing into account.

Any bilateral trade and investment agreement must be comprehensive and address the full range of barriers to U.S. goods and services if it is to receive broad, bipartisan congressional support.

Fish and Wildlife has a significant amount of federal funds for land acquisition, yet it is skimping on management of the lands it already possesses and shortchanging local tax bases.

One of the main lessons I have learned during my five years as Secretary-General is that broad partnerships are the key to solving broad challenges. When governments, the United Nations, businesses, philanthropies and civil society work hand-in-hand, we can achieve great things.

Consensus building doesn't necessarily fit with my experience.